homefleet

What do you guys, think space warfare should be like.

▼

What do you guys, think space warfare should be like.

a post for all those who love and hate walls of ships killing other walls of ship.

from Sins Forums

What do you guys, think space warfare should be like.

Did you guy see it as walls ships killing other walls of ship. Or did you see space warfare as artillery duels. Or did you see space battles, as assassin or submarine battle in which ship had to find each other in order to kill each other.

What roles did you think that each class of ship should of fallen into. And what would of been the difference between each ship of the same time in the other factions. Like in star wars empire at war, how the empire had all of it capital ship be fighter carriers, and the rebel that had to build fighter and capital ship, instead of just the capital ship.

UPDATA SECTION

This part is my updata based on all of your guys great input. Also I will try to sum up some of the many points, so people will not have to read 10+ pages to understand, where we are.

First, we need to ask are selfs four important questions. These questions will change everthing, more then if there is stealth in space, or if space fighters make any sense.

Question

1. Is there FTL technolgy and how does it work? From what I have seen, there better be some FTL drive in the future, or there will be little to nothing to fight over. The second part of the question of how it work, changes weapons and tactics. If the FTL drive or technolgy is based on a point in spaces, then these points, become choke points. Also the size of the FTL technolgy is important, as if the technolgy is small enoght to be put into a fighter, then why not a missile, that you could FTL into your enemy.

2. Is there FTL sensors? Can I detect an enemy ship in real time moving at FTL speeds? Can my sensors see into the next jump point?

3. Is there FTL Communications? Can I send orders to a fleet in another system, or will I have to send a ship?

4. This is the most under asked question from my point of view. Can I use the FTL technolgy itself, as a weapon.

I'm right now working on some space warfare models to show what I thing space warfare will be like, after all your input. Please add try to answer these questions and any others I will post, as this helps with the models.

Thank you for all your post.

632,204 views 262 replies
Reply #226 from Sins Forums Top
I don't know where you get this fantasy land where you can probe the entirety of space and time at once, but clearly some good drugs are involved.

Only beer.

Look, I'm not messing with you. We can seriously do spherical scans with radii on the order of magnitude of astronomical units using nothing but cheap thermal sensors. It's mostly an issue of data management. But you'll be pleased to learn that something known as the "computer" has also been invented.

What about cold targets? Electronics and probes do wonders with minimal heat and energy requirements. They can function at remarkable range (just check out our primitive proves out there now), and the little black space van has no need to be anywhere in sight.

If your probe uses no thrusters, no remote control, and no thermal power source, then yes, you can make it sneaky. This would be an engineering challenge akin to trying to piss your name in the snow. A whole lot of effort for a pretty pointless accomplishment.

q for biggles:

let's say you have an awesome passive sensor. for fun, let's say it detects infrared only, though obviously you could make it detect anything you want.

wouldn't the fact that your infrared (or other) radiation only travels at c mean that a ship at a reasonably long range would have quite a difficult time accurately predicting the path of the giant blob of heat? certainly you can see it, but if the thing's a decent ways away they can't be reasonably tracked, which is certainly a _type_ of stealth?

or are you just assuming that anything that far away can't be hit for the same reason, even if you have lasers that go the same speed, so the 'stealth' would be functionally useless?

The "stealth" would be functionally useless. The speed of light is not a constraint on detection, because you'll always get the light before the ship. You seem to have predicted my response, so I'll leave it at that.

-Dr. B

P.S.- I'd prefer to argue that there can be no war in space whatsoever. Shooting down stealthy spaceship arguments is a tragic waste of my knowledge and arrogance. Someone try to justify armed spaceships for me. It'll be less embarrassing for you, I promise.
Reply #227 from Sins Forums Top
Someone try to justify armed spaceships for me. It'll be less embarrassing for you, I promise.


I can't...

Because I agree with you.

You see fellows, what Wanderer17 and Bigglesworth_XIII have been secretively hinting at all through this thread is that realistic space combat is BORING.


-FTL travel is impossible by our current understanding of physics.

-Stealth in space is impossible by our current understanding of physics.

-Fighterships are impractical and less useful than a missile of equal mass.

-Spaceships can't be armored too heavily or else they will be severly limited in their "range". They can't be armored too lightly or they will be easy to destroy and vulnerable to random occurences like micrometeorite impact and the like.

-Given the powerscale of the weapons we'd be using, one good, solid hit on your ship and you're dead, either instantly (total vaporization), nigh-instantly (explosive decompression), or slowly (loss of oxygen, food, water, or other necessities through the hole caused by the hit.)

Basically, the whole ordeal of space combat would be shooting your missiles and slugs at an enemy you can't see and shooting down HIS missiles and slugs with your point defense lasers. Not fun. Not engaging. Certainly not something that wouldbe easy to market.


As for how I think space combat should be, discarding conventiona physics and inserting a lot of handwavium in place, basically I'd like it to be like Freelancer. Going full burn through the milk darkness of a nebula, dodging and weaving through explosive gas pockets and forcing pirate scum to choke down hot, plasmatic death was never so satisfying as it was in that game.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #228 from Sins Forums Top
one of the facts i dont like about sins is that there is no possable way for a scout to take out anything bigger than a scout. the ships are ranked by strength and theres no way to take out a more powerful ship, accept to have more of them.



in another space game i play the ships dont have health meters. some ships will get hit and die in 1 hit. and others you can shoot for what seems like hours and they wont die, even though there the same ship...


something like that would be nice in sins...and for the space tactics...i think sins doesn't quite have it right, but there by far the closest to it.
Reply #229 from Sins Forums Top
You see fellows, what Wanderer17 and Bigglesworth_XIII have been secretively hinting at all through this thread is that realistic space combat is BORING.


Boring, would be based on your point of view. Based on what I have seen, and read, and see that there will be very few class of space warships. In some cases, you many only have one class of warship in space! I grow up, on the old rock, paper, scissors system of combat. From my first days playing Suikoden 1 to todays Sins of a Solar Empire, I have seen nothing but old rock, paper, scissors system of combat. But after playing Suikoden 4 in which you have only one type of warship, a warship, I found that you can still have a level of deep in that game, by changing it from what types of ships you uses, to how they are used.

Alson add real elements to a game could make it more fun. Look at company of Heros for an example. They added cover and firing arc, two real thing not add before that increased the level of deep in the game, as well, as how fun it was.
Reply #230 from Sins Forums Top
You see fellows, what Wanderer17 and Bigglesworth_XIII have been secretively hinting at all through this thread is that realistic space combat is BORING.

War is hell, not fun...you know...
Reply #231 from Sins Forums Top
I have updated the main post. Please read and put in your input. Thank you

New question that are still not answerd.

Is there any reason, to use coil guns and lasers together, as they produces heat and require power from the ship. Having them both would reduce energy faster, and produce a lot of heat faster, then a coil gun and missile system, or an laser and missile system.
Reply #232 from Sins Forums Top
Missles! Has anyone noticed how both the Proton Torpedoe from Star Wars and the Photon Torpedoe from Star Trek are simply guided energy weapons?

In reference to DOOM3's BFG, what if you had a self contained energy reaction that was guided by a computer chip that cuased a spontanious chain reaction when in range of its target? Maybe the chip could contain some material that reacted badley to the energy of the missle, like antimatter or something?
Reply #233 from Sins Forums Top
FTL is possible. Not ANYTIME soon but possible. The most realistic timline I could get was EVEOnlines timeline where humanity finished colinizing the Sol System at around 7300AD and FTL (called Jumpgates) where discovered at around 8100AD.

They operated on the "bending a hole in space between gravity wells" principle.

Coincidentaly, EVEOnline is one of the most incredible Space MMORPG's ever.

http://www.eve-online.com/ Check it out.
Reply #234 from Sins Forums Top
i too base my predictions of complex systems that break general relativity on fictional universes

care bears exist on TV! therefore if I can just figure out what year they are living in, i can accurately FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Reply #236 from Sins Forums Top
Actually, now that I think about it, my personal view is warped by popular culture. Being only 20, I grew up with Star Wars and Star Trek and all the other outlandish scifi space jargon. Huh. Thats depressing.

Although this thread has cleared up a lot of this. Freeing me from the mold of ignorance.

Then again...its only silly until the other guy shows up with force fields.
Reply #237 from Stardock Forums Top
One minor quibble over point#1. FTL travel is NOT a prerequisite for space warefare. The fact that is allready been studied by various goverments allready should put that one to rest. As for the the balance of points 1-4, the biggest single problem with FTL is not so much pratical as one particular theoretical problem that manifests itself for values greater than c. It was recognized fairly early on that Once C was exceeded, time would reverse itself and this raises all sorts of awkward problems in principle, let alone the technical ones. An FTL ship would to an observer, appear to 'arrive' before it ever left, or put simply, it would appear to be moveing backwards in time. This creates havoc with our view of causality and that its not something our view of the universe appears to tolerate. Once this is clearly understood, the questions raised, ie can I detect an FTL ship with sensors takes on a almost surreal edge. What sort of sensor can detect something which in your frame of reference, appears to be moveing backwards in time?. Even the question itself seems to lose any sort of meaning once phrased in this manner. Or to consider the weapon question, since at values greater then C, both energy and mass become negative numbers, or in mathematical terms there *imaginary* numbers, one has to consider that as well. We make very real(ie non-imaginary weapons from real matter and real energy. What would a weapon comprised of 'imaginary'* energy and matter look like? or act? I have no real way to even conceptulize such a thing. Its my feeling that space warfare at speeds far below super-luminal velocities would be nasty enough without invokeing the strange paradoxes that arise from FTL travel :) 

* I use imaginary not in the sense of 'fake', rather its more a limitation of language. Im not really sure how to desribe such concepts correctly, maybe Steven Hawking knows
Reply #238 from Sins Forums Top
There are theoretical ways to get around the infinite mass/negative length/zero time conundrum of FTL speed. With our current understanding of physics, you might be able to go faster than light without the universe exploding. There is, however, one unavoidable consequence:

If you can go faster than light, you can go back in time, even if you instantly "jump" between two gates, or the like. You need three points in space in order to do it (two stationary relative to each other, one traveling past at near-light speeds). The amount of time you can go back in space is given by the space-time distance between the two relatively stationary points. Of course, you could just keep jumping around to go back as far as you want.

If you want to know why this is, simply do the calculations for the relativity of simultaneity observed by a moving body between two points separated in space-time. If you don't understand this concept, don't bother arguing with me.

If you accept faster than light travel, you necessarily accept time travel. The time travel paradoxes might be sorted out by putting you in your own frame of reference, but the implications are just as serious.

Before you all start speculating on what the universe would be like if we could go back in time, I'd like to point out that I did this thought experiment to point out why we probably can't go faster than light, and if we can, it won't be for war. (Wars in space would, once again, revolve around whoever nukes the other first. Except "first" now means furthest in the past.)

Now burst, bubbles, burst!

-Dr. B
Reply #239 from Sins Forums Top
Since when has "appears to go back in time" come to mean "goes back in time"?

There is no known observation that can occur faster than the speed of light. This does not mean that when a ship instantly travels a Light Year it has traveled a year back in time! What it means is that the light from the original ship's position has not reached you yet, and will not be seen for another year. The ship has only arrived before the fastest known medium could display the info. The ship has still traveled instantly, and properly calibrated clocks will show that.

When you are talking about light traveling over long distances, just because you can observe an object using light, it does not mean that the object is there, still there, or has been unchanged. It simply means that at the time the light was produced, the object was there creating it, and it took you some amount of time before you could see it. Nothing else.

We can seriously do spherical scans with radii on the order of magnitude of astronomical units using nothing but cheap thermal sensors. It's mostly an issue of data management. But you'll be pleased to learn that something known as the "computer" has also been invented.
This will prove VERY useful in the off chance that I lose track of a STAR SYSTEM.
Reply #240 from Sins Forums Top
Someone may have already mentioned it and I missed it in reading through all the other posts, so forgive me I'm restating something.

Here are the steps to successfully understanding how space combat would work based on our current view of the universe.

Step 1: Brush up on your basic math and physics (specifically relating to space flight, inertia, mass, thrust, etc...).

Step 2: Obtain a copy of Attack Vector: Tactical (board game)

Step 3: Read the Attack Vector rules, get confused, re-read 5 more times, then play the 2d version of the game.

Step 4: After several sample 2d games, move on to the 3d games. At this point you head explodes, or you pass out from information overload trying to make it work.

Step 5: After enough games you either successfully understand how Space Combat will work, or you give up and pray you never see anything space related every again.
Reply #241 from Sins Forums Top
Since when has "appears to go back in time" come to mean "goes back in time"?

There is no known observation that can occur faster than the speed of light. This does not mean that when a ship instantly travels a Light Year it has traveled a year back in time! What it means is that the light from the original ship's position has not reached you yet, and will not be seen for another year. The ship has only arrived before the fastest known medium could display the info. The ship has still traveled instantly, and properly calibrated clocks will show that.

When you are talking about light traveling over long distances, just because you can observe an object using light, it does not mean that the object is there, still there, or has been unchanged. It simply means that at the time the light was produced, the object was there creating it, and it took you some amount of time before you could see it. Nothing else.

Read my words out loud, real slow:

If you can go faster than light, you can go back in time.

Still don't believe me? Fine. Take your FTL ship, and jump from Sol to Alpha Centauri. Then jump to an inertial frame of reference outside the two systems traveling at a significant fraction of light speed in the direction of Alpha Centauri. Then jump back to Sol. If performed properly, you should arrive before you left. If you want to try the "but your frame of reference changes!" argument, fine. Have the inertial frame of reference pass by Sol right as you jump to it, so that you can putter home on sub-light engines just in time to give your past self a high-five. But then you have to deal with the awkward situation of figuring out which one of yourselves screws your wife that night.

Do I need to spell it out for you? FTL travel is fantasy.

-Dr. B
Reply #242 from Sins Forums Top
less hold on the FTL travel, i think we need FTL communication before we can go anywhere. faster communication ways we have is radio wave and a lightyear from point A to B, it would take years.
Reply #243 from Sins Forums Top
FTL is as much of a fantasy as your time traveling myths.

Let me put it this way, "doctor". As distance increases, the light you observe has come from increasing points backwards in time. The ship may be right next to you when you observe its light signal from some long distance out, but IT IS NOT THERE, BECAUSE YOUR SLOW ASS EM SPECTRUM MAKES YOUR OBSERVATIONS OBSOLETE.

You can not both treat the observable universe as the absolute universe AND ignore the limitations of your medium.
Reply #244 from Sins Forums Top
FTL is as much of a fantasy as your time traveling myths.

Let me put it this way, "doctor". As distance increases, the light you observe has come from increasing points backwards in time. The ship may be right next to you when you observe its light signal from some long distance out, but IT IS NOT THERE, BECAUSE YOUR SLOW ASS EM SPECTRUM MAKES YOUR OBSERVATIONS OBSOLETE.

You can not both treat the observable universe as the absolute universe AND ignore the limitations of your medium.

It is true that the inertial frame of reference won't actually be able to observe your arrival at Alpha Centauri, but you'll still arrive there before you left Sol according to the inertial frame of reference's frame of reference.

That said, I'm not really sure if your arguing for me or against me, because your comment doesn't seem particularly relevant.
less hold on the FTL travel, i think we need FTL communication before we can go anywhere. faster communication ways we have is radio wave and a lightyear from point A to B, it would take years.

Same issue as FTL travel. A message sent faster than light could be sent back in time just like a FTL ship. (Same nifty trick using the principle of relative simultaneity.) I suppose the moment you turned on your FTL radio, you would receive all sorts of messages from the future, the first of which would be: "Dear God, Einstein was right!"

And then you would be confused for the rest of your life.

-Dr. B
Reply #245 from Sins Forums Top
but doc u got ask how fast is the FTL travel and radio? if its the speed of 100 times of light, i dont think time travel would a problem.
Reply #246 from Stardock Forums Top
You cant argue against studied deliberate ignorance like that being displayed by Bob, hes the sort of person that probably thinks the earth is flat and 4000 years old as well. The point being made, and maybe its just far to subtle is....wait for it

Homework wants to know where things stand as far as FTL Travel communications and so on goes. Since FTL travel implies time travel, that makes all of his queries well..moot. It of course follows that > FLT travel would be useless as a form of communication travel, or much less a weapon. Do you get it? Secondly your grasp of english seems as poor as your grasp of GR.

Myth In popular use, a myth can be a collectively held belief that has no basis in fact according to the speaker. There are other definitions of course, for example, unicorns are a myth, so is the tooth fairy, creationism, santa claus etc. Myths can also be defined as sacred stories as well. The implications of GR at sublight speeds , at the speed of light and at speeds faster then light, can be calculated and conclusions drawn from them. Not sure where 'myth' enters into it. IOW a well established theory is used to drawn conclusions even if preforming an actual experiment is for all intents and purposes, impossible. Superluminal velocites break causality and give rise to paradoxes, this occurs regardless weither you 'agree' or not. The mechanics of how and why may escape you, there not the most intuitive concepts to grasp for a lot of us (myself included), but thats well...your problem not anyone elses. I tend to agree with Biggles, based on your rambling incoherent replies, I too am not really sure what your argueing for...or against /Boggle.

Reply #247 from Sins Forums Top
My name is Homefleet, John Falkenberg, not Homework. Like my fleet is my home, just like the Spacer Vasaris.

Has any one played a game, or read a book, or seen a movie in which there was space warfare and no FTL technolgy?
Reply #248 from Sins Forums Top
Realistically you would NOT want to have an war in space. All of the debris from all the destroyed ships would make space travel nearly impossible. Also setting off an nuke in orbit or an ship equipped with an nuclear reactor getting destroyed would flood the area with enough radiation that all satellites not shielded against radiation would be disabled/damaged/or rendered an expensive piece of metal.

As always, what makes an fun movie or game fun wouldn't be practical in real life.
Reply #249 from Stardock Forums Top
Doh Sorry HF  ;p One of the best examples of Non-FTL No Handwavium space warfare in my library is S.M. Stirlings , The Stone Dogs. 3rd book of the series, a number of fairly detailed examples of plausible space warfare between the 2 world superstates, The Domination of the Draka and the Western-Based Alliance for Democracy. Dont have to read the 1st 2 there set in the 1940-1950 era, unless you like the story line.
Reply #250 from Sins Forums Top
Thanks John Falkenberg, but what about this wormhole thing, in which the way to move between two points in space, is to bring them together, instead of traveling at FTL speed to reach them in seconds?